At length, Bugay, having run out of colorful metaphors (not to mention rational arguments), went right to middle school toilet humor:

As it is, interacting with you is as distasteful as stepping in a dog turd -- I don't want to deal with a dog turd either.

Isn't that wonderfully charitable? He went on:

. . . interacting with you is like stepping in a dog turd. 'Nuff said.

Well, it wasn't "'nuff said". He had more "manure metaphors":

. . . I think I have come up with a very fine metaphor: dealing with you is like stepping in dog poop. I don't know why it's like that. But that's precisely what it's like talking to you. You're a force of doggie nature.

Thus, Bugay exercises his manifestly profound Christian charity by making the fine-tuned distinction that dealing with me is like stepping in dog poop, rather than calling me dog poop. This proves, I guess, that he thinks I am regenerated (the very thing that he refused to answer when I inquired of him in the same combox). See the related paper: Has Martin Luther's "Snow-Covered Dunghill" Mystery-Legend Been Solved?!

Not content with sending insults my way; John proceeded to trash my entire readership as well. In the post I had already noted how he characterized them (you) as "mockers" ("In the meantime, please take down the link to our PayPal account. One donation has come in from this bunch of mockers, and I’ve returned it"). He also denied the Christian genuineness of their acts of charity ("Brent, you'll have a hard time convincing me that anything coming from this group is Christian"). Then in the combox discussion he added four more insults (I'll keep y'all posted on any more that come in as the story develops):

. . . you've got a rogue's gallery full of readers here who take your grand-standing word for things and thus miss out on huge swaths of reality in the process.

Hanging out here is a sure sign of bad character.

. . . you've got a lot of bottom feeders around here, who can't deal with the truth.

You've got to pick some marginal personal item and let the mockers go to town on that.

. . . the snippets are for the individuals here who still have consciences -- unlike those of you with the seared consciences . . . [in the combox below]

Note that John's reference to "seared consciences" of folks here refers to the following Bible passage:

1 Timothy 4:1-2 (RSV) Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, [2] through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared,

This is what John thinks of some of my readers (and likely myself, as the "ringleader": leading all of you astray) . . . He probably won't have the guts to name persons he places in this category; just as he was too much of a coward to state outright that I am supposedly unregenerate. But the insinuation is very clear. Those of us in this category, according to John, follow demons and the devil and are obviously no Christians.

Look at the bright side. It could be a lot worse . . . Personally, I think it's kind o' catchy: my readers can have the nickname of "catfish" just like the old pitcher on the Oakland A's!

On the other hand, it ought to be realized that a "bottom feeder" is an organism that usually eats you-know-what. Many of them are detritivores: the diet of which is described as "decomposing plant and animal parts as well as organic fecal matter".

Therefore, Bugay takes Luther's fecal obsession a step further: all he said about me was that interacting with me was like stepping in poop. But my readers are even an even lower species of scum of the earth than I am: y'all actually eat poop, according to John Bugay . . . How wonderfully edifying . . . altogether typical of the scatological rhetoric of anti-Catholics, though, following Luther in this regard:

Birth and Origin of the Pope; one of a series of eight pieces of "art" commissioned by Martin Luther, by the artist Lucas Cranach, for Luther's work Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil (March 1545). Luther told Cranach what to depict, and wrote a rhyming verse for each plate.

[It] shows the Pope and three cardinals being expelled from the anus of a female devil while three furies are nursing and caring for three infant popes . . . a graphic echo of Luther's assertion in his treatise that the pope had been born from the devil's behind.

* * *

This sad saga continues, as John's friend TAO continues the slander and mockery and calling good evil, in a new post that I have analyzed, with a dismantling of his ultra-eisegetical, pathetic use of the Bible:

121 comments:

I'm going to say, if you who think Dave's one-sided bombast here is a great thing, you are an inquiring mind and a bottom feeder.

But if you're the least bit honest and you really want to ask me why I'm so hateful and bitter, or I'm not afraid of laughing in the Roman church's face, I'll be happy to set up a thread at Triablogue and answer your honest questions.

You think you're just plum-full of Christian love and charity: the love of God, comparing interactions with people with stepping in poop and describing others as poop-eating low animals and mockers and "rogue's gallery" and of "bad character," etc.?

John, I was a protestant for 28 years. I entered the Church last year after resigning from my Army Chaplain commission that I had prepared four years for at seminary and chaplain school. I then took 4 months and spent that time picking up a part-time job to survive with rent and food to study the claims of Catholic and protestants. And I have to say John, your attitude, far from Christ Jesus is one of the non-objective reasons I became Catholic. (there are many objective historical reasons I did make this choice). But I notice that protestant conduct in conversation is often very similar to you: using put-downs, name calling, insults and judgement of motives. And sadly, know what it reveals? It reveals a deep immaturity and insecurity of your beliefs. I contrast you with two great apologists of the faith. C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton (who was a Catholic convert who lead C.S. Lewis out of atheism by the way.) I'd be happy to share my story with you and the reasons I became Catholic. But I want to ask you a very serious question? Do you really think your attitude and speech is going to fly on judgement day before the Lord Jesus Christ? Do you gloss over the passages in Scripture where Jesus says to love your enemies and where Paul says to return evil with good (found in Romans) and also "Let your conversation be FULL of grace, seasoned with salt." Jesus says if you call your brother 'raca' which is a put down curse word in Jewish idiom, Jesus said you'll be answerable to the sannhedrin. (which was the Jewish ruling council.) So how are you considering Dave Armstrong? If he is not your Christian brother, you are condemned by Christ for insulting and cursing your neighbor or enemy. If he is your Christian brother (which God is the judge of this, not you) then you are even on more severe ground. For, Jesus says that in the way you treat his children, you will be treated. So I warn you that you are on dangerous ground. Making presumptions, spewing insults out of your mouth. Jesus said to judge a tree by its fruit. I have tracked Armstrong's conversations before and after becoming Catholic and he has never engaged people by insulting them or being rude toward them. And for you to reject the charity of someone who has genuined concern for your loved one is just utter foolishness. When Jesus was about to be sent to the cross, the prostitute used her year's wage of prostitute money on oil to pour on his feet. And Jesus didn't reject her gift because she was a 'sinner' or not a Christian yet. It was the pharisees who scoffed at this act, judging her heart and motives. John, what company are you walking in? Wake up and live a life of mercy and grace!

Where do you suppose they got that idea? [that John is "hateful and bitter" -- his words]

I imagine from your abominable behavior recently (returning gifts of charity and questioning the motivations of those who gave them or were going to): your words and your actions.

I'm always extremely reluctant to throw around the words "hate" or "hatred" in reference to someone's views of other people. That didn't come from me. But we know folks by their fruits, and yours lately are evident for all to see.

Hello Mr. Bugay, I have found in my life that when one flings dog poo at others they invariably end up smelling like dog poo themselves. I do not need to read Dave Armstrong's words to see your bitterness and hatefullness when such infects everything you write. And it will continue to infect you and fester in your heart until you return to the faith that you have turned your back on. Loathe Dave Armstrong, myself, even the Catholic Church if you want but as 1 Cor 12:12-27 shows us, your loathing in the end is truly only a self-loathing as we are all part of the same body.

Paul, I am not the one flinging the poo, I am having it flung at me. Do you see the difference? No, of course not. I stepped in it – yes, I mentioned Dave’s name once, in public – that is what I mean by “stepping in dog poo” – and he has, in short succession, used the occasion to write four, five or more blog posts, decrying me, my very existence – not with any substance, only that I don’t want to take money from the man – that I dislike him, the way I dislike stepping in dog poo.

I will tell you, when you have it flung at you, as is happening to me right now, you also end up smelling like dog poo. And once I’m done here, I’m definitely going to take a long shower.

“Bitterness and hatred” of course, do not infect anything that I write. If you really want to find bitterness and hatred in my writings, go find it, I dare you. You won’t find it there. Maybe some witty sarcasm.

But you have to attribute such emotions to me, because you really cannot address what I write from a factual level. You may say, “loathe Dave Armstrong, myself…”, but really, you are attributing to me emotions that are not there. I do loathe the Roman Catholic Church, but I do so because its teachings have harmed the cause of Christ over the centuries. Still, Christ prevails. And I am able, in conformity with Paul’s writings, to “be angry, and sin not”. I am very careful to be angry about the right things.

The arguments I make about Roman Catholicism are things that I think about, long and hard and prayerfully. And the fact that I am the subject of the character assassination that I am facing here is evidence that they are the right arguments to make. Because you can’t answer them.

(I had in fact posted links to my arguments in another comments thread, but Dave removed them, saying they were "off topic". Here, too, where the topic is "how John Bugay argues," will Dave let me post links to my genuine arguments? Will he let me make my actual arguments here? Or will he "moderate" them?

Michael: But I want to ask you a very serious question? Do you really think your attitude and speech is going to fly on judgement day before the Lord Jesus Christ?

I called him “stupid” and in retrospect I should not have done that. But that was almost a fun chiding with him. Otherwise, my conscience is clear.

You have presented a long litany of what one “ought” to do, what one will be judged for, but really, if you think I’ve been insulting Dave, you ought to go back and re-read, and show me the things that you think are really, genuinely insulting.

While you’re at it, your comment that Dave is never insulting or rude, is fairly laughable.

In my own life, the most important question became, “Is the Roman Catholic Church what it says it is?” It was a pure up-and-down decision. Yes or no? Because if it is, then we ought to obey it, but if not, then it might freely be rejected.

After a lengthy, prayerful, soul-searching study, I concluded that the answer was “no”. In that case, I rejected it, although, another question presented itself: “what is it?” And that’s the subject of my apologetic blogging these days. How did Rome get to be what it is today, if it is not what it says it is.

The short answer is that its longevity really is a testament to the durability of a large bureaucracy, especially one that has the tools of persecution and even war at its disposal. Of course, it has neither of those things at its disposal now; its ideas must compete in the marketplace of ideas; its doctrines must stand under the scrutiny of the light that the information age is shedding on everything.

In an era in which liberal Protestantism, “higher” criticism, and even atheism have not been able to destroy, but have only shown the strength of the foundations of Christianity and the truth-claims of Christ to be who he says he is, it hasn’t taken much scrutiny at all to see Roman Catholicism’s “pillars” be knocked out from under it.

One thing you should consider, if you desire actual dialog and respectful interactions with other people, is to step outside the confines of the 'Triablogue.'

If 'poop slinging' truly concerns you than I suggest you take a step back from 'Triablogue' and take an honest look at the things written there and the way other people are treated. That blog has an awful reputation, even amongst Protestants. I have seen Protestants comment there on particularly vile threads, such as Steve's attempt at 'illustrating' the mass by posting a grotesque cannibalism image, end up get treated just like the Catholics - all because they call him out. The rule there is you better be 100% in favor of the 'Triablogue' masters or else the fangs come out. *

I can provide clear examples if you need them.

The other thing: I honestly don't think very many people actually visit the site. Take notice some day of the comments. They generally come from the same group of 10-12 individuals. As a general rule, people are not attracted to bitterness and clearly polemical and immature arguments. The actual arguments you make are more mature and better than those of others in my opinion.

The thing is that some of your arguments are worth discussing. You have in the past lamented publicly that you feel that the substance of your arguments are not answered. A big reason for that is the setting for which you make them. Many people are 'banned' and many others, after a few rounds of poop slinging chose to stay away.

There is really no reason for 'poop slinging' from either side. What is way more impressive are adults speaking like adults and encountering one another's claims in a spirit of charity. As I am an Irish guy I often even have to remind myself of that truth!

Just some thoughts of mine. Take it or leave it.

SP

* a thread like that is so utterly ridiculous that I cannot imagine that anybody would actually be swayed by it. It would take about 30 seconds to completely turn it on its head by opening up the catechism and seeing that no, Catholics do not believe that the last supper went down like that. We consume the 'glorified' body of Christ in the miracle of the eucharist.

But, I could not say that because I am banned. But Steve already knew that. He just wanted to drop the maturity level down to about 1.5 on a scale of 10 and offend people. But, I digress.....

Sean, I still do not want to discuss these things with you, because all you are interested in doing is to put your fingers in your ears, trashing modern scholarship and saying “nuh uh”. (You may take some pride, when I say “know-nothing Roman apologists”, you have helped me come up with that handle). You are still banned, still uninvited to comment over there, so it’s good that you get things off your chest here.

As for the “cannibal” image, all that Steve was doing was taking your own doctrine to its logical ends. You ought to appreciate that tactic.

If you are content with having your arguments fall only on the ears of the converted and unchallenged in any meaningful way than disregard my previous comments to you. However, it is funny that you complain about the substance of your arguments not being addressed when so many who could handle them are banned. That is one way of limiting substantive interaction, I guess.

Sadly, I have never 'trashed' modern scholarship. But not surprised you think I have. I recall back on Beggars All you accused me of saying something about Peter Lampe that I never said.

My approach to modern scholarship is precisely your approach to modern scholarship. Your particular approach to 'modern scholarship' has been called out my several people, such as David Waltz, at length.

You only care about scholarship insofar as you can pull things from it that damage the Catholic Church (or that you think damage the Catholic Church).

You have said before about Lampe, your favorite scholar, who argues that 1st Timothy is not Pauline, "Protestants are not bound by authority in that way, so I may agree or disagree with Lampe based on my own judgment of his case."

You reserve for yourself judgement to disagree with the scholars that you are telling Catholics they are forced to accept.

At any rate, we have discussed modern scholarship in a non-abrasive way here. Remember? It is a thread called 'Modern Scholarship, Rome and Challenge.' The challenge went uncontested.

Aside from the sadness I feel seeing a fellow Catholic in turmoil over his faith and going overboard in trying to rationalize his decision to leave the Church, I applaud your efforts to try to come to grips with the issue of the papacy if that is your stumbling block. It is too bad that you failed to do much of that research PRIOR to leaving the Church. That said, if you want to re-write your personal narrative so as to have us all believe that your mopery over popery is why you left the Church is your delusion not ours. I have been rather busy with my own challenges of life to address your anachronistic musings that reads the notion of monoepiscopacy into apostolic succession or Petrine primacy. Briefly, I would note here that while you love to quote Fr. Brown excerpts you neglect to mention to your readers that he firmly held why he was alive that the office of the papacy and the episcopacy evolved in the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You now reference the Archbishop of Dijon and go and take his statements grossly out of context as well. It seems to me that if you are seriously going to rely on your researches to dictate your theological that you at least learn how to do research first.

I will leave you to washing poo off your hands so you can enjoy Thanksgiving with your family.

Couple of things Paul. I am not “in turmoil” at all – I reached my conclusions a long time ago, and I’m very comfortable with where I am now. Although your “sadness” has brought a tear to my poor eye.

Nor am I trying to “rationalize”. Life and history are simply confirming what I had concluded long ago.

I am not trying to “come to grips” with the issue of the papacy. It is not a “stumbling block”. I’m just one sentence into your comment, and I’ve already dealt with four of your mischaracterizations.

THAT’s FOUR MISCHARACTERIZATIONS IN ONE SENTENCE, Paul.

Apparently, you don’t mind doing this – it’s what you do, very well, all the time. That is, mischaracterize things. To be sure, there are more, but I’m going to stop counting now to save you the embarrassment – think of it as another small kindness on my part.

I’m not “rewriting my personal narrative” – this is all true. I did not quote “Fr. Brown”. I quoted an archbishop, who did the Vatican’s study, among other things. And he is part of “high level” ecumenical discussions – right outside of Rome, and apparently with Rome’s blessings. Sure, there are Protestants, but you Roman Catholics will need some Protestants “on board” to believe whatever cockamamie story that now is created to account for how the papacy came about.

These are not “anachronistic musings”, and I did not do the “research”. All of it is rather a fait accompli: what I’ve reported represents the starting point of these “high level ecumenical discussions”. It’s all been published in a book. I am just reporting things to you. This is the current state of affairs.

I’m sorry that you are facing “challenges of life”. The Lord is in the business of helping us along with those. There is one, very easy condition – “yoke” – that he requires. And that is, “Repent” and believe the good news of the Gospel.

"when you have it flung at you, as is happening to me right now, you also end up smelling like dog poo"

Metaphorical poo actually makes one smell of poo? You should get yourself into the science books with that one John.

"this is a Roman Catholic Archbishop, at the heart of Vatican studies, who says, the East never shared the western conception of the papacy."

The good Archbishop obviously forgot the one about Eutyches and St Flavian.

Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore wrote:

"Eutyches refused to submit to the synod called by Flavian. He appealed his case to Pope Leo I: "I take refuge, therefore, with you, the defender of religion and abhorrer of such factions. …I beseech you not to be prejudiced against me by their insidious designs about me, but to pronounce the sentence which shall seem to you right upon the Faith. (Eutyches to Pope Leo, Ep 21.)

Patriarch Flavian also appealed to Rome for a ruling, moving Pope Leo to produced his famous Tome, which totally condemned Monophysitism. And so, responding to Eutyches, St. Peter Chrysologus, Archbishop of Ravenna, writes: We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed PETER, WHO LIVES AND PRESIDES in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome."

Hmm, looks like the east had the same conception as the west.

Oh and by the way, Ignatius of Antioch said of Rome: "to the Church which holds the presidency. . . because you hold the presidency of love, named after Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. . . who are filtered clear of every foreign stain. . .You have envied no one; but others you have taught"

If what you are claiming is true, then statements like these shouldn't have been mentioned in 110A.D or during the time of Pope Leo. It all seems rather early for bishops from the east to be sharing the same conception about Rome as Rome did about itself.

Turmoil or not, hatred and bitterness or not, Bugay's religion (Protestant Fundamentalism) is a joke. It is a mistake to take this mindless obscurantist, or any Fundamentalist fool, seriously, as those scholars he cites would be the first to acknowledge.

It is weird that Bugay is so convinced that his snippets from scholarly books and droning ecumenical dialogues present difficulties to the Catholic faith. But then he considers the mere fact that many scholars refer to the papacy as the "Petrine office" as some sort of strike against the faith! Clueless. But why expect rationality from fundies, who live and breathe absurdity? You can't reason with the unreasonable.

Hi guys .To be honest with you , i am very surprised that you even bother to explain things to John Bugay . Honestly the level of the things which he is saying is so ridiculous , that i stopped taking him seriously a long time ago . I am not saying these things out of arrogance or hatred , not at all , but i mean come on , he hasent said a single interesting thing yet .John is one of those persons like many other protestants which believes that the Holy Spirit never spoke with anyone but them,nor before nor after the so called reformation .Personally , i am glad that John is not a catholic anymore . Think of all the damage which he could cause from inside the Church .John said :if you who think Dave's one-sided bombast here is a great thing, you are an inquiring mind and a bottom feeder.Well John , the things which Dave is saying in here make perfect sens and everything you said until now is pure nonsense .And by the way if i were a protestant (Lutheran for example) i would have used much harder words and i would have told you that the Holy Spirit asked me to rebuke you .In many ways , i dont blame you , really i dont , you have left the light (the Catholic Church ) and you are in the dark now , so you cant see clearly even if you believe and you are sure that you do .I have wasted many precious minutes writing these things , so i will stop now .GBU and i really feel sorry for you . I will keep you in my prayers though and no matter what , i will pray for you .

Roberto Jung: But for those on the fence or ill-catechized among us, seeing a strong response to any even plausible-seeming claims of "Protestant fundamentalist obscurantists" is of inestimable value.

Adomnan: Good point. I don't deny that people can have good reasons for engaging Bugay. They can find it fun to trade insults with him, something to do instead of a filling in a crossword puzzle or watching a sitcom. Or he could accidently introduce an interesting topic. I've actually engaged him myself, albeit briefly, for both of these motives.

What is impossible, in my opinion, is any real dialogue with him. He lacks a mind capable of reason. I'm not saying he can't express himself; I'm saying he can't think. If he could, he wouldn't be a fundy -- and fundies, heaven knows, express themselves!

I agree totally with Adomnan here. I am documenting this garbage so as to illustrate the utter absurdity of anti-Catholic fundamentalism. Bugay has of late been providing great (indeed, classic) material: ludicrous, rib-busting funny, ironic at every turn. It needs to be preserved for the ages.

So I document it in order to let him hang himself by his own rope. That is a roundabout way of doing apologetics: showing the intellectual (and often ethical) bankruptcy of opposing positions.

Bugay is one of the best arguments for Catholicism out there today. We want him to keep being a loose cannon, just like the OWS kooks help the conservative political cause.

I don't debate theology with him, but that is not all his rantings are valuable for. Nothing illustrates folly more than a fool being a fool and someone profoundly ignorant about a topic proceeding to blissfully lecture us all on it.

Right Jim Paton. If an Archbishop on the Vatican Commission had read Mark Bonocore, he might have been able to avoid making that mistake.

Or do you suppose the Archbishop knows something that Mark Bonocore doesn't know?

As for the rest of you guys, it is funny that you think "John Bugay is a Protestant Fundamentalist" "absurd", "funny" -- that these personal insults are an adequate or even "plausible" response to some of the things I've suggested here. It really just shows you can't otherwise address what I've said.

It shows the degree to which you hold only to what's within your own small little insular world, and how really weak your actual case is.

Jim, you're just to smart for me. I'll just ask some of the other, less, uh, knowledgeable readers here, what do you suppose Minnerath knows that Bonocore doesn't know? (And here's a bonus question: Why isn't this Vatican website available in English?)

Second, Jim Paton, regardless of what I know or believe, it doesn't stop Rome from falling apart in the Minnerath sort of way.

Jim, the snippets are for the individuals here who still have consciences -- unlike those of you with the seared consciences -- God speaks and they know that something isn't right.

I am grateful that I am able to get these "snippets" in here, for the people with consciences to see. If you want something more than "snippets", to be sure I have gone to great lengths to fill in the details for anyone who is interested.

Why do you assume -- on what basis do you assume -- that your question necessarily leads to a need for an "infallible magisterium"?

If you and I, living on the same earth, read the same words, "the sky is blue", it is very difficult for us to come to different conclusions. And if you and I, living on the same earth, read the same words, "it being summer, the tree has green leaves", we are, again, going to come to similar conclusions. And if we put those concepts together, "it was summer, and the sky was blue and the leaves on the trees were green," we are again going to come to similar conclusions which won't require an arbiter.

That is the principle behind perspicuity: You and I read the same words, we have similar experience, and we come to conclusions that don't require an "infallible magisterium" to arbitrate.

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

Given that God "breathed" the Scriptures, and that he also created man in a particular way, which he knows, it seems very likely that different men reading the same Bibles, and accountable under the same system of accountability, would be able to go very, very far, with "a due use of ordinary means," to "attain unto a sufficient understanding"

At what point does that break down for you? At what point does it become necessary to ask, Who is to judge who has the correct interpretation and who doesn't?

I just added to the post above this combox, Birth and Origin of the Pope; commissioned by Martin Luther, by the artist Lucas Cranach, for Luther's work Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil, which "shows the Pope and three cardinals being expelled from the anus of a female devil".

I thought this would be highly appropriate since it has to do with both 1) poop, and 2) the papacy. John shows himself to be well within a long and venerable tradition of toilet humor in Protestant anti-Catholic circles.

Note that John's reference to "seared consciences" of folks here refers to the following Bible passage:

1 Timothy 4:1-2 (RSV) Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, [2] through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared,

This is what John thinks of some of my readers (and likely myself, as the "ringleader": leading all of you astray) . . . He probably won't have the guts to name persons he places in this category; just as he was too much of a coward to state outright that I am supposedly unregenerate. But the insinuation is very clear. Those of us in this category, according to John, follow demons and the devil and are obviously no Christians.

John Bugay writes: "What's the right way to understand Scripture? How about this:

'begin with a patient and humble listening to the text ... our first task is simply to see what the text actually says.'"

Okay, let's do this.

On the Catholic Answers Apologetics forum, Bugay wrote:

"God imputes the righteousness of Christ to our accounts, and we are precisely as righteous before God as Christ is. That is the point of the atonement."

I pull out my Bible, read Paul and find no allusion to the "righteousness of Christ" at all, Moreover, I read that the only thing Paul says is imputed to believers (in Romans 4) is faith, which is ipso facto not the "righteousness of Christ."

According to the Bible then, "the text actually says" that faith is imputed as righteousness. According to Bugay, however, it is not faith that Paul tells us is imputed as righteousness, but Christ's righteousness, which Paul never mentions.

So, Mr. Bugay, would you follow your conscience and patiently and humbly listen to the text and then let us know where you find the Bible simply saying the opposite of what we read in it? Thank you.

Still trying to "reason with the unreasonable" huh, Adomnan? :-) My sympathies. But your point is an excellent one and won't be lost on others who actually do try to reason through things and respect Scripture for itself, as God-breathed, inspired revelation, rather than eisegete it according to man-made traditions.

I'm the kid who shouts that the Fundamentalist emperor is naked. It's my thing.

Bugay: I'll have an answer for you. It will be serious and honest.

Adomnan: Try to keep it simple and clear, too, given that your ideal is what the Bible "simply says." After all, if the imputation of Christ's righteousness was the gospel Paul was preaching, he would have proclaimed it plainly and unmistakably, right?

Here's the question again to keep you focused:

How do you manage to interpret Paul's statement that "faith is imputed as righteousness" as having the opposite meaning, namely, "faith is NOT imputed as righteousness, but Christ's righteousness, which Paul never mentions, is"?

And here's an extra-credit question you can answer if you'd like to try to win a few bonus points:

If, as you said, the point of the atonement is that Christ's righteousness is imputed to people, then why does the Epistle to the Hebrews, the only book dedicated to explaining Christ's atonement, not mention this theory? Oversight?

SP: Considering you just attributed to JB something he explicitly denied asserting, the "dishonest" label does seem to stick to you, without necessarily sticking to any other member of your religion.

Spare me.

If you were so concerned about honesty you would have jumped on Bugay countless times in recent months starting with several months ago on BA where he put something in quotes attributing it to me...only I never said what he said I said. He did the same thing on a post on Triablogue a few weeks ago to somebody else and got caught.

I can smell the double standards from miles away and so can everybody else.

John asserted (he did) that many of us (all of us?) engaged against him have a 'seared conscience.'

"Jim, the snippets are for the individuals here who still have consciences -- unlike those of you with the seared consciences -- God speaks and they know that something isn't right.

'...who still have...' means that some of us do not have.

I could ask John, "John, which people do you assert lack a conscience and how do you identify those who do not have a conscience?"

I say that those that John accuses of lacking a conscience are those who openly disagree with his maniacal musings about the church. Who else then?

Maybe John can help you out and explain how it is that he knows that other men do not have a conscience?

So, TurretinFan...John Bugay asserted something. He asserted that some of us do not have a conscience.

Maybe I would take your high and mighty judgement if it were frankly even a tinsy bit evenly applied.

"I see the policy of deceit as being one of the primary engines for the 'false teaching' that they're putting out there. They make a big deal that Roman Catholicism is 'a whole cloth,' and it really is all knitted together -- the false doctrine, the policy of deceit that perpetuates the system, the misdeeds, as you say, that are a symptom of the system."

Bugay is simply being a parrot. The "Catholic dishonesty en masse" canard is often asserted in high level anti-Catholic circles, as I have documented through the years:

Eric Svendsen

"RC apologists will do or say just about anything--true or not--to advance their cause. They engage in the strategy of deception regularly." (on his Areopagus board: 4-27-03)

"[W]e have experience with those who use the 'strategy of deceit' to mislead people down the road to a false gospel." (on his Areopagus board: 6-4-03)

David T. King

"I already have a very low view of the integrity of non-Protestants in general, . . . most of you are too dishonest to admit what you really think." (on Eric Svendsen's Areopagus board, 4-15-03)

Bishop James White

"Yesterday we noted further examples of the means by which Roman Catholic apologists in the tradition of Art Sippo engage in simply dishonest and inaccurate argumentation so as to maintain their audiences." (8-6-05)

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=592

"Notice he never once accurately represents even his own words (how difficult it must be to engage in such self-deception!) . . . he is willing to dishonestly assert . . . no honest person could ever bring himself to say such a thing, but as I have pointed out, it is the essence of Romanism to defend Rome at all costs, and one's personal integrity and honesty is surely the first casualty. . . . I wonder where the honest Roman Catholic apologists are?

Bugay: "And yet millions were slaughtered over the centuries for not accepting the papacy. Welcome to Catholicism!" (3-30-10)

I suppose he's including the Muslims who died in wars of aggression over many centuries as they invaded the Byzantine Empire and Europe in their jihad to spread Islam. The papacy was always the biggest foe of Islam. Even so, I doubt the numbers would amount to "millions."

Bugay echoes al-Qaida's case against Catholicism and Western civilization. Maybe the "Reformed" can resurrect the Calvinist-Islamic axis, which was so active in 16th-century Hungary.

It is extremely interesting that you have got two incidents here in which you think you can accuse me of not being totally honest -- in the link that Sean provided, the *actual* phrase I used was "What Bryan did was to say" -- I did not say, "Bryan said" -- if you'll check grammar surrounding infinitives, you'll note that these two things are NOT the same thing.

The second thing was Adoman's digging up of my use of Barrett's World Christian Database, which listed the Roman Catholic Church as the third largest persecutor in the world, behind Communism and Islam.

Barrett actually does list some five million people -- likely a lot of Muslims -- killed by Roman Catholicism.

[A chart, to which I did not have access on 3/30/10, later showed that many of those millions were killed in the 20th century.

Do not ever forget that it was the misuse of this same source that led to the perpetuation of the "33,000 denominations" myth.

If someone wanted to be "generous" with their interpretation of what I was saying, there would be no question at all.

The fact that you are scraping and scouring the several hundred lengthy and substantive blog posts that I've written, and you are coming up with two usages -- not that are questionable, but two that might be challenged -- is a pretty sorry excuse on your part for not dealing with the things that I actually say that are factually correct, and that [if you cared about your religion instead of finding things to say about me, personally] ought to send shivers up your spines.

Any scholar would find Bryan's use of this quote far more dishonest than anything I have done.

The reason is, Bryan is not providing Luther's entire quote, and he left off the most important part, and that is, even though Peter got keys, but here is what Luther actually said to precede that small selection:

From this quotation they took the word “to bind” and twisted its interpretation so as to make it mean “to command” and “to forbid,” or to make a law and commandment for Christendom. By this kind of reasoning they give power to the pope and boast that he has the authority to bind with laws the soul and conscience of a Christian so that one must obey him in this matter, on penalty of the loss of everlasting bliss and under the threat of eternal damnation.

And did not hesitate to say that the papacy is a false authority, possessing false "keys". Here is what he said after "the keys of the pope are not keys but husks and shells of the keys"

And this: Peter binds and looses in heaven, and nobody else. This is the right way of thinking and speaking of the keys.

Bugay: The second thing was Adoman's digging up of my use of Barrett's World Christian Database.

Adomnan: I never cited "Barrett's World Christian Database," whatever that is.

So you're saying you didn't write the following?:

"And yet millions were slaughtered over the centuries for not accepting the papacy. Welcome to Catholicism!" (3-30-10)

If you did, then why are you taking me to task for quoting you? We can't quote you anymore? (By the way, Dave "dug up" the quote, not I.)

You really are out to lunch, Bugay.

Bugay: "Barrett actually does list some five million people -- likely a lot of Muslims -- killed by Roman Catholicism."

Therefore, according to you, the fact that Charles Martel, to cite one example, killed an army of invading jihadists at the Battle or Tours and saved Western Europe from Muslim conquest was a bad thing. After all, those Muslims that Charles the Hammer killed are certainly added to Barrett's total (since it apparently includes every Muslim who died violently within 500 miles of a European outpost in the past 1500 years).

And, you know, not only Catholics but also the U.S. government have killed a lot of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan with your taxpayer dollars. Is that bad, too? If so, you're directly implicated and so guilty as sin, and you'd better do something about it if you're a moral man. Or are you contending that it is only bad when Catholics kill Muslims?

Bugay: Whether you call it pantheism or panentheism, it is one big "fused" blob of something that's coming.

Adomnan: Yeah, right. The body of Christ, of which we are all members, is a "blob."

Bugay, it's the body of Christ, not the body of Michael Moore.

And if you have a problem with panentheism, then take it up with the Apostle Paul, who was a panentheist ("all-in-God-ist"):

Acts 17:28, quoting Paul: "For in Him we live and move and have our being."

Did you pay attention? (I doubt it.) "In" God, we have our being, and Paul was including the pagans to whom he was speaking as those who are "in Him." So, all are "in Him," pantes en theo, panentheism. And that's even before they are incorporated in the Body of Christ! How much more of a divine "insider" can you be?

On this blog, I won't allow your rude, idiotic use of "Ratzinger" for the pope. Either call him by his proper title (Pope Benedict XVI) or at the very least "the pope" or shut up. We all know you don't accept his authority, but to deliberately not use the title is juvenile and asinine . . . you can always do that on your blog but not here.

I will delete any post of yours where you refuse to use that minimal amount of courtesy and propriety.

Bugay: Adoman, something else is in view. Ratzinger, and you, break down the Creator-creature distinction, a thing which Paul does not do.

Adomnan: I do? Where?

Bugay: Paul is creating a point of reference with his pagan audience; you seem to want to embrace them.

Adomnan: So your exegesis is that Paul said something he didn't believe -- i.e., he lied -- to appeal to his audience?

That is the inference one would draw from your remark that Paul said something that sounded pagan ("a point of reference") that he did not actually "embrace."

Or to put it more directly: Did Paul mean it when he said that "we" (meaning Paul himself, the pagans and everybody) "have our being in God" or didn't he? And how is that not "panentheism" (i.e., the belief that "we are all in God")?

Bugay: Aside from that, you compassionate and merciful mockers, I do have a wife who has leukemia, and while she is awake, I am spending time with her.

Adomnan: It did occur to me that it was inappropriate for you to be spending time in pointless, acrimonious exchanges with strangers on the Internet while someone near and dear to you was gravely ill. But that's your choice, not our fault. Perhaps the distraction helps you deal with the stress.

On more than one occasion you have put words in quotes and attributed those words to people who have not said them.

Now, I get your point with Bryan. You were trying to summarize it. I get it. Back when you did it to me, however, you initially refused to clear it up until I finally convinced you that I never said it.

The point is not so much that you have been creative with your use of 'quotations' the point is that "TurretinFan's" wailing about my comment when people on his team can do much worse is ridiculous.

Do you want to take the opportunity and clear me up? When you said that some of us lack a conscience, what did you mean? How do you know that?

Aside from that, you compassionate and merciful mockers....

Maybe I missed it but I did not see anybody mock you in that regard. God forbid. That would be something that I, for one, would completely disavow and criticize.

First, even as the "brilliant theologian" and priest, Joseph Ratzinger was citing Teilhard de Chardin, who is know for having things like man "evolve" into "greater complexity". Along with this "greater complexity" is his concept of "the omega point". There is only "one" thing at the end. That "one thing" is the final evolution of God and man and everything else. I've quoted the 1969 Joseph Ratzinger as saying this:

"But let us return to man. He is so far the maximum in complexity. ... yet in the juxtaposition of individual men he is not yet at the goal but shows himself to be an element, as it were, that longs for a whole which will embrace it without destroying it. Let us look at a further text, in order to see in what direction such ideas lead: “Contrary to the appearances still accepted by Physics, the Great Stability is not below – in the infra-elemental – but above – in the ultra-synthetic.” (from "Introduction to Christianity".

Second, what do you, as a Roman Catholic, think of when I say the phrase, "living host"? Sister Faustina, whom Pope John Paul II canonized as a saint, was devoted to the Eucharist and prayed to become "a living host". You don't suppose she was thinking "host of a tupperware party". She was thinking, "the living host Catholics take in the sacrament of communion".

What exactly does that represent. You can go to the CCC, and you know that "the whole substance of Christ" is present, "only by faith" the qualifier says, but nevertheless, when Catholics think "host", this is the most natural meaning.

And so then, when Pope Benedict XVI prays, "that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy," neither is he thinking "host of a tupperware party". Nor are his hearers thinking that.

http://www.zenit.org/article-26608?l=english

The most natural reading of this -- and remember, we have a sitting pope talking about "the world" becoming "a living host" (and "host" having all of the meaning attributed to it by all the Roman Catholic definitions of transubstantiation and eucharist) -- here you are breaking down the creator/creature distinction.

If he doesn't want you to think of that host -- and remember, he is talking to a group of priests, who know what a host is.

Why not use some other word?

And yet, we become "fused into" that "living host". The redeemed are heaven, and through Teilhard de Chardin's process of "complexification" -- into that which is "the whole Christ" -- God and all. This is very messy. And it is your pope saying these things.

Just take a look at the book of Revelation and see all the "individuals" hanging around, for a more biblical view of eschatology.

Adomman, As far as your question about “Christ's righteousness” is concerned, this has been a part of Reformed theology since Calvin. Luther, of course, talked about an “alien” righteousness. It is a righteousness that is not our own. Calvin notes, [the one justified by faith] “is he who, excluded from the righteousness of works, grasps the righteousness of Christ through faith, and clothed in it, appears in God’s sight not as a sinner but as a righteous man” (Institutes 3.11.2). 1 Cor 1: 30: “It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.” Christ becomes, among other things “our righteousness”. And going back to your verse in Romans 4, “to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”

What does it mean, by the way, to have “sin that will never be counted against” you?

What part of the early church was it that only thought that you were forgiven for sins "up to baptism" but not after?

This is one of my big contentions with Roman Catholicism. Baptism forgives you, but after that (and in most cases, it is a baby getting baptised, and any of the "good gifts" of baptism are spent, and you're on your own, in a very real way. Why did the early church not understand that an infinite, and infinitely gracious God, forgives all of your sins, through all of your life? Because some mutant ideas crept in, because there was no "infallibility". But because there is some conception that the early church always got everything right, there is some need for a "second plank" which, while it was once a one-time thing, became a full-blown "sacrament" of Confession.

Romans 5: “just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned … But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!”

So, Dave, you at least have some sense of propriety when one of your "mockers" acts the way a lot of first graders acted when I was a kid. I take this to be at least a possible sign that you have a conscience with regard to all of this.

That, coupled with your reading of Calvin, and I have to say, I see some possibility of hope for you.

Again, that's not me committing one way or another. But I've been around long enough that I've seen some very long-term Roman Catholics -- myself included -- actually decide that "I'm no longer going to render obedience to this organization that is so totally bankrupt in so many ways".

At least guys like Meier and Minnerath are being honest with the historical facts.

The kind of "apostolic succession" of which, it is claimed, extends all the way back to the apostles, is really a late second century accretion, designed by the second century church, to assert authority over and above the gnostics who were running rampant in second century Rome. While it may have been a useful apologetic tactic, it is not a permanent, ontological part of the structure of "the Church that Christ founded" and as such, it may freely be rejected.

In fact, Calvin wrote about that in his commentary on Malachi. You may want to look that up. I'm pretty sure you'll know where to find it.

Those in "authority" in the late middle ages had run so far afoul of everything that Christ stood for, the only proper response was to reject their system as a whole.

And since we are talking about poop in this thread, this is doubly appropriate:

But as the Jews flattered themselves on account of their descent, and ever boasted of their fathers, and as that preeminence with which God had favored them proved to them an occasion of haughtiness and pride, the Prophet here ridicules this foolish confidence, I will scatter dung, he says, on your faces: “Ye are a holy nation, ye are the chosen seed of Abraham, ye are a royal priesthood; these are your boastings; but the Lord will render your faces filthy with dung; this will be your nobility and preeminence!...

For how have arisen so great impieties under the Papacy, except that pastors have exercised tyranny and not just government? For they have not regarded the purpose for which they have been called into their office, but as the name of pastor is in itself honorable, they have dared to raise themselves above the clouds, and to assume to themselves the authority of God himself. Hence it has been, that they have dared to bind consciences by their own laws, to change the whole truth, and to corrupt the whole worship of God: and hence also followed the scandalous sale of justice. How have these things happened? Because priests were counted as angels come down from heaven; and this same danger is ever to be feared by us.

This then is the vice which the Prophet now refers to; and he shows that the priests had no reason to think that they could shake off the yoke, Ye shall know, he says, that to you belongs this command. We indeed see what they objected to Jeremiah,

“The law shall not depart from the priests nor counsel and wisdom from the elders.” (Jeremiah 18:18.)

These are the weapons by which the Papists at this day defend themselves. When we allege against them plain proofs from Scripture, they find themselves clearly reproved and convicted by God’s word; but here is their Ajax’s shield, under which they hide all their wickedness, retailing as it were from the ungodly and wicked priests what is related by Jeremiah, “‘The law shall not depart from the priests;’ we are the Church, can it err? is not the Holy Spirit dwelling in the midst of us? ‘I am with you always to the end of the world,’ (Matthew 28:20;) did Christ intend to deceive his Church when he said this to his Apostles? and we are their successors.” The Prophet now gives the answer, Ye shall know, he says, that to you, belongs this command.

So, Dave, you at least have some sense of propriety when one of your "mockers" acts the way a lot of first graders acted when I was a kid.

Note that Jim immediately apologized. TAO even accepted it. But here you are mocking him after he apologized. That is not how the Protestant Christianity I learned and loved for 32 years would have us behave. When someone apologizes, that is the end of it. Forgive and forget. Forgive 70 x 7.

Do I have to cite Calvin on forgiving people who ask for forgiveness, too? Isn't that your job?

But in any event, I haven't see you apologize for all the rotgut you have spewed on my blog about myself and (even more so) about my readers. Once again we see a huge difference between how Catholics act and how anti-Catholic Reformed fundamentalists act.

I take this to be at least a possible sign that you have a conscience with regard to all of this.

I have always tried to achieve fair, cordial discussion on this blog, according to what I write near the bottom of my sidebar. I was a staff moderator at the Coming Home Network for three years. We kicked off Catholics when they didn't abide by our rules.

I recently disagreed with fellow Catholics when I thought they were acting unethically towards Steve Hays. Hays couldn't care less. He turned right around and mocked my supposed insincerity and had to find an evil motive in it. There was none. They were wrong, and I called them on it. My goal is the truth and the good: period.

It's always the same with anti-Catholics. I have defended at one time or another James White, Eric Svendsen, and Tim Enloe, as well as Calvin himself and Luther, when they are lied about. Even TAO acknowledged that I have done this with regard to Luther, and it is a matter of fact.

I have recently been collecting Bible proofs from St. Francis de Sales, about the indefectibility of the Church, for my upcoming book. He gives many prooftexts against the "Reformers" regarding the indefectibility of even the OT proto-Church:

Aaron and the Golden Calf:

"Aaron was not as yet High Priest, nor head of the people, but became so afterwards. And it is not true that all the people worshipped idols: — for were not the children of Levi men of God, who joined themselves to Moses?" [Ex 32:26]

2 Chronicles 15:3: "For a long time Israel was without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law;"

"Elijah lamented that he was alone in Israel (1 Ki 19:14) [“I, even I only, am left”]. Answer: Elijah was not the only good man in Israel, for there were seven thousand men who had not given themselves up to idolatry [1 Ki 19:18: “I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Ba'al”], and what the Prophet says here is only to express better the justice of his complaint. It is not true again that if all Israel had failed, the Church would have thereby ceased to exist, for Israel was not the whole Church. Indeed it was already separated therefrom by the schism of Jeroboam; and the kingdom of Judah was the better and principal part; and it is Israel, not Judah, of which Azarias predicted that it should be without priest and sacrifice."

"S. Paul complains to the Philippians (2:21) that all seek their own interest and advantage; still at the end of the Epistle he acknowledges that there were many good people with him and with them." [4:10, 14-18]

Matthew 15:13 He answered, “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up.”

"If this fair tree of the Church had been planted by man's hand I would easily acknowledge that it could be rooted up, but having been planted by so good a hand as is that of our Lord, I could not offer better counsel to those who hear people crying at every turn that the Church had perished than what our Lord said."

Matthew 16:18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death [KJV: “gates of hell”] shall not prevail against it.

"Now, I ask you, who has given Luther and Calvin a commission to revoke so many holy and solemn promises of perpetuity which Our Lord has made to his Church? Is it not Our Lord who, speaking of his Church, says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it? How shall this promise be verified if the Church has been abolished a thousand years or more?"

Acts 5:38-39 “So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; [39] but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!”

"Or do we really wish to violate the sound rule of Gamaliel, . . .? Is not the Church the work of God? — and how then shall we say that it has come to nothing?"

Ephesians 4:11-12 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, [12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,

"Was the perfection of the saints already accomplished eleven or twelve hundred years ago? Had the edification of the mystical body of our Lord, that is, the Church, been completed? . . . and if it has not been completed, as in fact it has not, even yet, why wrong you thus the goodness of God, saying that he has taken back and carried away from men what he had given them? It is one of the qualities of the goodness of God that, as S. Paul says (Rom. 11:29) his gifts are without repentance [RSV: “For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable”]: that is to say, he does not give in order to take away."

Revelation 12:6, 17 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, . . . [17] Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. . . .

"Is it not written that the revolt and separation must come (2 Thess. 2:3), and that the sacrifice shall cease (Dan. 12:11), and that the Son of Man shall hardly find faith on earth at his second visible return (Luke 18:8), when he will come to judge? Answer: all these passages are understood of the affliction which antichrist will cause in the Church, during the three and a half years that he shall reign mightily; but in spite of this the Church during even these three years shall not fail, and shall be fed and preserved amid the deserts and solitudes whither it shall retire, as the Scripture says (Apoc. 12). The ancients had wisely said that to distinguish correctly the different times referred to in the Scriptures is a good rule for interpreting them aright; for lack of which distinction the Jews continually err, attributing to the first coming of the Messias what is properly said of the second: and the adversaries of the Church err yet more grossly, when they would make the Church such from the time of S. Gregory to this age as it is to be in the time of antichrist. They wrest to this sense that which is written in the Apocalypse (12:6), that the woman fled into solitude; and draw the consequence that the Church has been hidden and secret, trembling at the tyranny of the Pope, this thousand years, until she has come forward in Luther and his adherents. But who sees not that all this passage refers to the end of the world, and the persecution of antichrist, the time three years and a half being expressly determined therein; and in Daniel also (12:7)? And he who would by some gloss extend this time which the Scripture has limited would openly contradict Our Lord, who says (Matt. 24:22) that for the sake of the elect those dags shall he shortened. How then do they dare to transfer this Scripture to an interpretation so foreign to the intention of the author, and so contrary to its own circumstances, refusing to look at so many other holy words which prove and certify, loudly and clearly, that the Church shall never be in the desert thus hidden until that extremity, and for that short time; that she will he seen to flee thither and be seen thence to come forth?"

Adomnan: I ask where I -- I, not Teilhard de Chardin -- break down the Creator/creature distinction, something that you accused me of, and I get in reply a short essay on your take on de Chardin's theology.

Meanwhile, you declined to answer my question, which was a question about what the Bible "simply says" and your response to that. Obviously, you're not under any obligation to answer. If you care to, though, here is my query again:

Given that Paul states his belief in a proposition that could serve as a definition of panentheism ( Acts 17:28: "For in Him we live and move and have our being."), why is it that you won't admit that Paul was a panentheist? If panentheism doesn't mean that we all have our being in God, then what does it mean? You do know, don't you, that "pan en theo" translates as "all in God?"

For me, the always surprising thing is how people who claim to base their beliefs solidly on the Bible can so cavalierly set the Bible's testimony aside when it doesn't suit their presuppositions.

Before launching off into a discussion of de Chardin's or anyone else's panentheism, you need to acknoweledge the Biblical fact that Paul himself was a panentheist and then proceed from there. Otherwise, neither you nor your interlocutors will ever get anywhere. You'd be engaged in a discussion with no consensus about definitions, no Biblical grounding and no communication of anything other than impressions and prejudices: in short, a waste of time and effort for everyone involved.

2 Peter 1:3-4: According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature . . .

a) For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily. (Colossians 2:9)

b) For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell. (Colossians 1:19)

c) And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace. (John 1:16)

d) . . . to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fulness of God. (Ephesians 3:19)

e) until we attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:13)

f) But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:9)

g) If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you. (Romans 8:11)

h) What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, 'I will live in them . . . ' (2 Corinthians 6:16)

i) and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith . . . (Ephesians 3:17)

j) for 'In him we live and move and have our being': as even some of your poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.' (Acts 17:28)

k) For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. (Romans 8:29)

l) And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:18)

The Greek word for "fulness" in all instances is pleroma (Strong's word #4138). These references also suggest the notion of theosis, or deification. It does not at all imply equality with God, but rather, a participation in His energies and power, through the Holy Spirit.

I am even more disappointed, John, in your response to my question about the so-called "imputed righteousness of Christ."

Once again, the essential Biblical question is dodged and instead I read comments about matters that are either not in dispute or are beside the point.

John Bugay: As far as your question about “Christ's righteousness” is concerned, this has been a part of Reformed theology since Calvin.

Adomnan: True, I suppose, if you consider Calvin to be the first Reformed person. However, Calvin picked up and parroted the notion of the imputed righteousness of Christ from Melanchthon, who originated the idea.

John Bugay: Luther, of course, talked about an “alien” righteousness. It is a righteousness that is not our own.

Adomnan: Again, Luther got the idea of imputation from Melanchthon. But that hardly matters. Wherever it came from, there is no "alien righteousness" imputed to anyone's account in the Bible.

John Bugay: 1 Cor 1: 30: “It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.” Christ becomes, among other things “our righteousness”.

Adomnan: The KJV and other translations leave out "that is," translating simply that Christ Jesus has become for us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Also, there's no "our" before "righteousness." In any case, if Paul's statement that Christ becomes righteousness for us implies that Christ's righteousness is imputed to our accounts while we remain inherently unrighteous, then Paul would also be saying that Christ's wisdom is imputed to our accounts while we remain unwise; Christ's sanctification is imputed to our accounts while we remain unholy; and Christ's redemption is imputed to our accounts while we remain unredeemed. Since this is obviously absurd, 1 Cor 1:30 supplies no support for the imputation theory.

In fact, the verse implies the opposite interpretation. Given that the wisdom, sanctification and redemption of 1 Cor 1:30 are indisputably intrinsic qualities or states imparted to Christians and not merely imputed to their "accounts," it would follow that the same is true of the righteousness that is listed along with them.

John Bugay: Calvin notes, [the one justified by faith] “is he who, excluded from the righteousness of works, grasps the righteousness of Christ through faith, and clothed in it, appears in God’s sight not as a sinner but as a righteous man” (Institutes 3.11.2).

Adomnan: In other words, Calvin is saying in effect that the Biblical assertion that "faith is imputed as righteousness" is to be understood as "faith is NOT imputed as righteousness, but Christ's righteousness, which Paul never mentions, is." I don't buy it. Can you blame me?

Asserting that faith "grasps" Christ's righteousness -- even though Paul never refers to "Christ's righteousness" nor does he talk about faith "grasping" anything -- does not permit us to subtract faith from Paul's statement about imputation and substitute something quite different in its place. Paul uses the words "Christ," "righteousness" and "imputed" elsewhere, and so he could easily have put them together and written "Christ's righteousness is imputed" if that was his gospel and the message he intended to convey. But he didn't.

Calvin is imposing his own (or Melanchthon's) ideas on the text, utterly insouciant of what it "simply says."

John Bugay: What does it mean, by the way, to have “sin that will never be counted against” you?

Adomnan: It means that the sin you repented of is not imputed to you; i.e., is forgiven. The statement does not mean, of course, that Christ's righteousness is imputed to you.

Bugay: Why did the early church not understand that an infinite, and infinitely gracious God, forgives all of your sins, through all of your life?

Adomnan: Of course, they did understand this. They understood that God is always ready to forgive on the condition -- yes, there is a condition -- that we repent, and true repentance inevitably entails reconciliation with Him and with the Church, the ark of salvation. That's why the Church set aside the misgivings of rigorists like Tertullian and insisted on the availability of forgivenness and reconciliation for people who sin after baptism.

Your problem, it seems to me, is not that the Church denies forgiveness to sinners, which she clearly doesn't, but rather that you reject the sacramental means ordained by Christ through which that forgiveness is obtained. You forget, if I may say so, that Jesus entrusted the ministry of reconciliation to the Apostles and their successors, who bind and loose and to whom He "simply" said, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."

However, this and some of your other remarks, which I will pass over, have no bearing on the initial question I raised with you and that you promised to answer; that is, whether the scriptures contain any mention of or clear allusion to an imputation of Christ's righteousness. That question you have failed to answer.

And if you'll permit an observation that is not meant to be snarky, but is based on true bewilderment on my part, I cannot understand how people who are so insistent on their fidelity to what the Bible "simply says" can entertain a doctrine so foreign to the Bible as is "the imputation of Christ's righteousness." Not only do they entertain it, but they make it the central tenet of their whole "gospel," the articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae. I find this astonishing. Why can't you admit that what isn't in the Bible just isn't there? What is holding you back?

Because that would take out 90% of Protestantism's false doctrines, and then John would have to come back to Holy Mother Church . . . He'd rather be anti-Bible (+ man's traditions) and Protestant than "fully Bible" and Catholic (+ apostolic tradition 100% harmonious with that same Bible).

Because that would take out 90% of Protestantism's false doctrines, and then John would have to come back to Holy Mother Church

Think about this Dave. No matter how bad some Protestant denominations are, no matter how many things they get wrong (and I'd venture the Reformed get 99% or more of everything right), it doesn't make Rome's story right.

And this is the point of my apologetic. You may have a lot of fun quoting De Sales, but there is no real way to connect the Roman Catholic system with Matthew 16:18. There is nothing but a thread of an assumption holding that one together for you; and that's the point of Reumann's comment. There is a historical gap just where you don't need one to be.

That means "the church" is not what you define it to be.

There is no "divine institution" for the Roman behemoth. Just because some Protestants fail, is in no absolves Rome or gives it a "divine institution".

Note that Jim immediately apologized. TAO even accepted it. But here you are mocking him after he apologized.

Yeah, well Turretinfan gets more skill points than I do.

At any rate,

@everyone

Apologies all around!

Now, wasn't that sincere? Don't you all feel better? Here's me projecting warm fuzzies to all of you!

I have defended at one time or another James White, Eric Svendsen, and Tim Enloe, as well as Calvin himself and Luther, when they are lied about.

But that doesn't stop you from exercising the old double standard, as we've seen in this thread, you continue to hold grudges, to bring up things, it seems, years after they occurred.

You're not one who forgives.

Adomnan: And if you have a problem with panentheism, then take it up with the Apostle Paul, who was a panentheist ("all-in-God-ist"):

Acts 17:28, quoting Paul: "For in Him we live and move and have our being."

Did you pay attention? (I doubt it.) "In" God, we have our being, and Paul was including the pagans to whom he was speaking as those who are "in Him." So, all are "in Him," pantes en theo, panentheism. And that's even before they are incorporated in the Body of Christ! How much more of a divine "insider" can you be?

Adomnan: It means that the sin you repented of is not imputed to you; i.e., is forgiven.

Ben: Yes! The Church has always taught that past sins only are forgiven in repentance. Pardon does not (as some would conveniently like to believe) extend to future sins!

Our repentance each time we fall is a part of the "working out our salvation" in this life - remember, "faith alone" without works is dead. So let us work, let us labor. In doing so we will be able to "buy" heaven (in a manner of speaking).

John Bugay: There is no "divine institution" for the Roman behemoth. Just because some Protestants fail, is in no absolves Rome or gives it a "divine institution".

Me: John, of countless things that might be said of your comment above, I'll just (for the moment) restrict myself to saying simply this:

Read this letter by Augustine. Please note carefully what the great Doctor of the Church, and the numerous bishops with him, say in section 5 regarding the pope and the scriptures vis-à-vis the origin of the holy Father's authority.

Ben: Please note that Hermas, author of “Shepherd of Hermas”, lived and wrote in Rome in the first half of the second century. Note *carefully* what he wrote about the leadership of the church at that time:

As I slept, brothers and sisters, a revelation was given to me by a very handsome young man, who said to me, “Who do you think the elderly woman from whom you received the little book was? I said “The Sibyl.” “You are wrong,” he said. “She is not.” Then who is she?” I said. “The church,” he replied. I said to him, “why then is she elderly?” “Because,” he said, “she was created before all things; therefore she is elderly, and for her sake the world was formed.”

Afterwards I saw a vision in my house. The elderly woman came and asked me if I had already given the little book to the elders (presbuteroi, plural). I said that I had not given it. “You have done well,” she said, “for I have words to add. So when I finish all the words they will be made known to all the elect through you. Therefore you will write two little books, and you will send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Then Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job. But Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you yourself will read it to this city [Rome], along with the elders (presbuteroi) who preside (proistamenoi – plural leadership) over the church." (Vis 2.4)

Hermas could not be more clear. There is a plurality of presbyters who “preside over” the church at Rome. This is no fuzzy mention, as in Ignatius, of a church in “a place of honor”. This is a primary source document from within the city of Rome that provides support for all of the “scholarship” that some of you decry, the “snippets” which speak of a “gap” in the “unbroken succession within the first century of the church. But this is not all there is. Later, Hermas reiterates the structure of this leadership, and the fact that they are not leading, but rather that they fight among themselves. He calls them “children”.

Now, therefore, I say to you [tois – plural] who lead the church and occupy the seats of honor: do not be like the sorcerers. For the sorcerers carry their drugs in bottles, but you carry your drug and poison in your heart. You are calloused and do not want to cleanse your hearts and to mix your wisdom together in a clean heart, in order that you may have mercy from the great King. Watch out, therefore, children, lest these divisions of yours [among you elders] deprive you of your life. How is it that you desire to instruct God’s elect, while you yourselves have no instruction? Instruct one another, therefore, and have peace among yourselves, in order that I too may stand joyfully before the Father and give an account on behalf of all of you to your Lord.” (Vis 3.9)

My point is that Augustine, the great doctor of the church was *wrong* about the “pope and the scriptures vis-à-vis the origin of the holy Father's authority.”

By the time of Augustine, the great Roman propaganda machine was well under way, extolling its own glories, its own authority, and why not? It had tremendous amounts of money, a tremendous level of influence within the city and later the surrounding regions.

But, “the Rise of the Papacy”, as Robert Eno, S.S. aptly titled his work, was not “development”. It was an act of conquest. It took centuries. But when you’ve got money, power, and influence, you can “have your way” with a lot of lesser folk.

Hermas already, in the first half of the second century, provides us with a very clear picture of the leadership of the church of Rome at that time.

Hermas is chastising the multiple leaders of the church at Rome. This is important to note because Hermas identifies himself as a slave (Vis. 1.1). It will not do to say that this is a group of priests who work for a bishop. The entire group "presides."

Here, in the leadership of the church of Rome, there are multiple elders who "preside"; they are acting like sorcerers. They exult in their wealth. They take the seats of honor. They want to teach, but they are guilty themselves of having no instruction. They fight among themselves as to who is greatest.

This is very clear writing. Very clear reporting of what the church was like. For those of you who want to understand what the leadership structure of the church at Rome was like, it is hard to find a better primary source witness than Hermas.

There was no “Bishop of Rome” for the first hundred years. After that, Rome supported its own propaganda effort by the “back-fill” method which I’ve called “The Roman Catholic Hermeneutic”. Look for it, it’s there.

So by the late fourth, early fifth century, its no wonder that you’ve got bamboozled bishops like Augustine, thinking that a pope is something great. Now that Augustine is bamboozled, you can use HIM as well, to support the papacy. It all built on itself over the centuries. But it was built on a foundation of Hermas’s elders who fought among themselves over which one of them was greatest.

I feel much better now . I am going to throw away the insignificant saint Augustine and from now on , whenever i need something,i will ask the great John Bugay .lolYou know John . I would rather be 1000000000 billion times with saint Augustine for all eternity , then to be with you for 5 minutes .

So, because John Bugay is not a member of your communion, you expect he won't be in heaven with Augustine?

Adomnan:

And you think John Bugay has a false gospel? If I have correctly understood you, are you likewise saying that Mr. Bugay will not (if things stay as they are) go to heaven? Or can people be saved despite holding to a false gospel in your understanding?

I understand that that host of this blog thinks that Protestants are his brothers in Christ. Do you two disagree with him on that? If so, why?

Adomnan: Yes, he has a false gospel. The imputation of the righteousness of Christ is not taught in the Bible, nor is penal substitutionary atonement. The first belief does not necessarily undermine the gospel, however, unless coupled with the second, which is anti-Christian.

TurretinFan: If I have correctly understood you, are you likewise saying that Mr. Bugay will not (if things stay as they are) go to heaven?

Adomnan: Faith is believing in what God has revealed. This is the faith that saves. Believing in lies cannot save.

Neither Mr. Bugay nor anyone can be saved by believing in a false gospel.

I imagine you would agree with that.

TurretinFan: Or can people be saved despite holding to a false gospel in your understanding?

Adomnan: No.

However, people who have false beliefs about how God redeemed us can be saved providing that their false beliefs do not extinguish the true gospel, that they don't mistake these beliefs for the gospel, and that they hold them casually and in ignorance.

Only faith in the truth can save. Otherwise, you'd have the contradiction that saving faith is faith in a lie.

TurretinFan: I understand that the host of this blog thinks that Protestants are his brothers in Christ. Do you two disagree with him on that? If so, why?

Adomnan: I agree with Dave (and the Magisterium, of course) that most Protestants (mainstream Protestants, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc.) are brothers in Christ. Protestant Fundamentalists, however, who believe strongly in penal substitutionary atonement and who regard this belief as constituting the gospel, are not brothers in Christ, in my view. Penal substitutionary atonement assumes a God who is not the God of the Bible and a Christ who is not the Christ of the Bible. You cannot be the spiritual brother of someone who believes in a false god.

I also perceive that Fundamentalist baptisms are generally invalid, and so I can't call them Christians on the grounds of their baptism, which is, I believe, the principal reason Dave considers them Christians.

Although Dave rejects my position on these matters, this is not a source of much friction between us, because I of course accept the Magisterium's teaching that validly baptized persons who have not apostatized are brothers and sisters in Christ and that this category includes many, indeed most, Protestants.

And I am equally firm on asserting that those who understand that Catholic teaching is true and reject it will be damned. I can't know if this is the case with any given anti-Catholic or not. In almost all such cases I am familiar with the person is so ignorant about Catholicism, that I seriously doubt that they ever truly understood it in the first place.

Secondly, there are moral requirements in Christianity: serious enough that in several places St. Paul and others casually assume that those who commit such sins (not showing forth love, not forgiving, etc.) place in question their salvific status. Faith without works is dead. And if faith is dead, a person clearly cannot be saved.

Catholics believe that those who persist in objectively grave sins imperil their souls, possibly to damnation. Again, I can't know with any certainty when this is the case in individual instances, but I sure tremble for the salvation of many anti-Catholics, who show no more Christian charity and the love of Christ than a fencepost or a pencil eraser.

We all have to be vigilant in following Christ, lest we be disqualified (1 Cor 9:27).

What I do know for sure is that I would never in a million years be attracted to Christianity, or consider becoming a Christian, if I were an atheist, if my only model for it was (heaven forbid!) fundamentalist, Pharisaical, anti-Catholic Calvinism.

If Christians are indeed known by their love and unity, then anti-Catholic fundamentalism would be the very last place I would ever see Christianity in practice, and hence I would remain unhappily in my atheism unless I saw some sort of Christianity that clearly exhibited the love, joy, and peace of Christ, and the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

And the latter is not solely confined to Catholics, by a long shot. Many Protestants are outstanding examples of the love of Christ in action, and of discipleship; of being a "city on a hill" and showing Christ's light to the world: being witnesses to the gospel of salvation.

Dave, just so we're clear, I contemplated a vocation to the priesthood for three years, applied for and was accepted in a local seminary program.

One of the "lies" that you have consistently told is that I know nothing about Catholicism. This is why I take you as unseriously as you do. And thanks to what you have written about me, your readers have a completely false picture of me. Which is, I guess, one reason why I have come here.

In retrospect, I could have exhibited more Turretinfan-like charity; but he is the master, and I am the student.

In any event, I totally now reject the Roman Catholic religion, with no fear at all for my soul, with complete faith in the promises of Christ.

To those of you here who do have consciences, I offer a sincere apology for having insulted you. If you have read Dave's writings about me, you may understand why I don't like him. If you read some of my writings, you may understand why I don't like Rome.

If you are moving in one direction or another, in order to try to serve Christ more faithfully, you have my heartfelt prayers that He will lead you to the truth of the Gospel.

Me: "TF, Why you are at it be sure to ask John Bugay what he thinks about our eternal destination since he has already asserted that some of us lack a conscience."

TF: "Is that any secret?

The Reformed churches are not ecumenical with Rome, even if Rome is with them.

-TurretinFan"

You are you saying that since *some Reformed churches are not ecumenical with Rome, some of us lack a conscience?

*It is not the case that 'the Reformed churches' are not ecumenical with Rome. Some are to greater degrees. Some Reformed churches, on the other hand, are not even ecumenical with other Reformed churches.

I could have exhibited more Turretinfan-like charity; but he is the master . . .

ROFL Man, if TAO is your model of charity, this is perhaps the best conceivable substantiation of what I expressed in my last post. TAO's behavior towards Catholics (and Arminian Protestants as well) is outrageous and atrocious, but he is far surpassed in that regard by James White, Steve Hays, and David T. King.

I guess one has to be on the receiving end of the vitriol and venom to fully comprehend it.

To those of you here who do have consciences, I offer a sincere apology for having insulted you.

What remarks exactly are you retracting and apologizing for (so I can remove them or at least note that you retracted them)? And who is it that you think has a conscience? If you don't know who is who, why bring it up at all?

Otherwise, we don't know what you are talking about and to whom your apology is directed.

Either answer relevant, clarifying questions directly and stop playing games or I will shut down this thread and your big platform and golden opportunity for "sharing the gospel" here will be lost . . .

John: "By the time of Augustine, the great Roman propaganda machine was well under way, extolling its own glories, its own authority, and why not? It had tremendous amounts of money, a tremendous level of influence within the city and later the surrounding regions," [adding that] "it was an act of conquest. It took centuries. But when you’ve got money, power, and influence, you can “have your way” with a lot of lesser folk."

Ben: Please John!

Sounds more like a description of the CORRUPT 16th cent Protestant lords and princes who certainly had tons of "money, power, and influence," and without whose cooperation the "Reformation" could never, never have happened! A glimse of some motives of this corrupt bunch. So much more could be posted...

Further, are we to believe a Doctor of Augustine's caliber, the African Churches, and indeed all the churches were duped by corrupt Rome, which church you judge strictly by her WORKS! (which begs the question: whatever happened to that old self-serving Protestant "I'm just an old SINNER saved by grace" shtick?)

Consider also this:

First. Scripture praises the Roman Church (Rom 1:8) for her purity of doctrine (no Protestant churches are ever mentioned, btw). And are we to believe that God failed to continue to preserve this honored Scriptural Roman Church, but instead allowed her to fall from grace, whereas the corrupt from the beginning Protestant churches he protects??

Second. With all of Rome's supposed concentration of evil and corruption, intent on nothing but "extolling its own glories, its own authority", seems odd that she never sought to suppress (rather than preserve) the various critical and embarrassing writings directed against some of her leaders. Take for example, (your interpretation of) the Shepherd, or others such as those of St. Bridet or Leo X!

Ben: But the fact is that in the ONE TRUE CHURCH, there will always be wheat and chaff. Good luck though finding a Scriptural justification for separating on account of the chaff.

John: Here, in the leadership of the church of Rome, there are multiple elders who "preside"; they are acting like sorcerers. They exult in their wealth. They take the seats of honor. They want to teach, but they are guilty themselves of having no instruction. They fight among themselves as to who is greatest.

Ben: You don't understand the passage. The "greatest" refers to the holiness of the individual, not his authority or position within the Church's hierarchy. Christ conferred enormous authority on Peter, yet still called him "Satan"! Peter's greatness would lie only in his future suffering and deep humility, not in the supremely high office to which Christ had elevated him.

So, because John Bugay is not a member of your communion, you expect he won't be in heaven with Augustine?

It`s not what i think . I am a catholic , i insist on being catholic,i pray to remain a faithful catholic , am i saved according to you and according to John Bugay? by the way , also saint Augustine is a catholic . So you guys , who pretend to be (God) are the ones which say that Catholics are doomed , so you dont believe that Catholics are saved,you dont believe that we will be in God`s kingdom . And because you dont believe that if we remain Catholics,we will ever make it to your heaven,that`s why i said that i would rather be 100000000000000000 billion times with saint Augustine for eternity instead of being with John for 5 minutes .Plz plz plz stop pretending to be victims whenever you feel like it . You guys hate the Catholic Church,you guys hate the Catholics ,you guys hate the pope.....you guys hate the Church which is the body of Christ whether you accept,agree or whatever.There is only One Church,one body of our Lord because our Lord is one.As saint Augustine (who is wrong according to you said)that if by disgrace i should loose my finger,do you think that my soul would go and stay with my finger,or will my soul remain in my body?of course the soul remains in the body and my finger will die. The same way with you guys,you want to separate yourselves from the Church (Catholic Church ) which is the body of Christ and you pretend that the Holy Spirit will leave the body and go with you....Return to the Church if you want to remain alive,otherwise you will die . Outside the Church there is no salvation,outside the body of Christ there is no salvation.GBU

John has till midnight tonight (eastern time) to answer the repeated direct questions about his remarks on "seared consciences" and to clarify what he has apologized for. If he doesn't do so by then I'll shut down the thread, and all others having to do with him. My patience is exhausted with his asinine, juvenile, and idiotic behavior. I'll also delete any comments he makes till then that do NOT answer those questions.

I am thankful, however, that once again, John has provided us with classic examples of anti-Catholic obstinacy and stupefied ignorance, as well as abominable behavior. This helps our case immensely: for folks to observe one of the self-proclaimed best examples of anti-Catholic apologetics.

Dave, I'm not retracting anything, so don't get in a tizzy. Leave it all up for posterity. As for who has, and who doesn't have a conscience, why should I be the one to decide? I don't know any of you.

It is instructive that Adomnan ignored the definition of Sola Scriptura that I provided from the WCF. He ignored that and worked with his own definition, and then said basically that with his definition of Sola Scriptura, you can't find the imputation of the righteousness of Christ in the Bible. But with the WCF definition, it's definitely not a stretch. My question is, since when does Adomnan get to define what Sola Scriptura is? I pay no mind at all to his definition, and I have a great deal of respect for WCF.

This thread was about "how I argue". At least you were kind enough to let me tell the folks what I actually say. Along with your reading of Calvin, and your admonition to Jim Paton about using first grader tactics, and, well, you know what I've said about that.

Just fyi: Bugay has now started a thread on Cryablogue, where he is commenting on various portions of the above "dialogue". Of course (it almost goes without saying) he didn't inform his readers why I shut the thread down.

I did, of course (as I fully explained) because he made sweeping apologies, yet refused to clarify exactly what he was apologizing for, then stated that he retracted nothing; also, because he kept referring to "seared consciences" but didn't have the guts to state to whom he referred.

Here is his new thread: anyone interested can go over there and be attacked by hordes of the vaunted intellects who populate that pathetic site:

This sad saga continues, as John's friend TAO continues the slander and mockery and calling good evil, in a new post that I have analyzed, with a dismantling of his ultra-eisegetical, pathetic use of the Bible:

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

I am reading your stuff since I think it is the most thorough and perhaps the best defense of Catholicism out there . . . Dave has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues.

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.--- Karl Keating (founder and director of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world; 5 Sep. 2013 and 1 Jan. 2015)

Whether one agrees with Dave's take on everything or not, everyone should take it quite seriously, because he presents his arguments formidably.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).